Recipient

Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust

First report 20 Feb 2015•Latest report 20 Feb 2015

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · NHS trust. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
3

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
6

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
6stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Wiltshire and Swindon

    AI-generated summary

    Richard Jeffrey Jones · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Richard Jeffrey Jones was at home alone and, during 14 to 15 October 2012, voluntarily ingested a quantity of tramadol that led to loss of consciousness, respiratory depression and aspiration of gastric contents, causing his death. The report raised concerns about recording and sharing information on risk and urgency, and about identifying primary responsibility when care was transferred between mental health services.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to record primary responsibility for patient care during transfers of care

    Wider context from the report

    “I am concerned in particular as to the following matters : a) As to the way in which information obtained from such a patient is recorded , with especial reference to the perceived level of risk and the degree of urgency in carrying out an assessment. b) As to how that information is shared with other agencies involved in the care of that patient to ensure that it is accurately passed on, particularly as to the level of risk and degree of urgency. c) As to who has primary responsibility for the care of that patient and how that is recorded by all those involved, particularly where there is a transfer of care. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to share patient information accurately with other agencies involved in care

    Wider context from the report

    “I am concerned in particular as to the following matters : a) As to the way in which information obtained from such a patient is recorded , with especial reference to the perceived level of risk and the degree of urgency in carrying out an assessment. b) As to how that information is shared with other agencies involved in the care of that patient to ensure that it is accurately passed on, particularly as to the level of risk and degree of urgency. c) As to who has primary responsibility for the care of that patient and how that is recorded by all those involved, particularly where there is a transfer of care. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to record information obtained from mental health patients, including perceived risk and assessment urgency

    Wider context from the report

    “I am concerned in particular as to the following matters : a) As to the way in which information obtained from such a patient is recorded , with especial reference to the perceived level of risk and the degree of urgency in carrying out an assessment. b) As to how that information is shared with other agencies involved in the care of that patient to ensure that it is accurately passed on, particularly as to the level of risk and degree of urgency. c) As to who has primary responsibility for the care of that patient and how that is recorded by all those involved, particularly where there is a transfer of care. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement the College of Emergency Medicine mental health risk assessment tool for ED suicide and self-harm risk assessment and urgency documentation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since the death of Mr Jones, and following review of the case in collaboration with AWP, an immediate action taken by SFT Emergency Department was to implement a new mental health risk assessment tool as recommended by the College of Emergency Medicine. This tool provides a more accurate assessment of the risk of suicide or self harm than the SADPERSON score we were previously using. It enables clinical staff to risk assess patients and document their findings prior to referring the patient to the mental health team with an indication of the appropriate urgency for their response. (Mr Jones fell within the low risk category using the old and new tools). The tool is”

    Source location

    2015-0068-Response-by-Salisbury-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 February 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement a mental health referral proforma to record risk, assessment timeframe, accepting practitioner and agreed actions for out-of-hours referrals.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To ensure robust recording of information to the out-of-hours AWP service a proforma will be generated for clinician use. This will include information such as the assessed level of risk as per the mental health risk assessment tool, the agreed timeframe for assessment, the name of the accepting mental health practitioner, and any other agreed actions from the telephone referral conversation. The proforma will safeguard against any misunderstandings between an ED clinician to an AWP”

    Source location

    2015-0068-Response-by-Salisbury-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 February 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Incorporate the mental health referral proforma into the upgraded ED electronic system for electronic transfer and storage by the end of 2015.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “mental health worker and vice versa. Once completed, the information will then be faxed or emailed to an agreed secure number or address for AWP to place with the AWP patient record, and the original will be held within the ED patient record at SFT. This will be incorporated within the ED upgraded electronic system by the end of the year so that it can be transferred and stored electronically.”

    Source location

    2015-0068-Response-by-Salisbury-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 20 February 2015

    Open published response
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
50%50%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026